Science 2.0 is a different way of thinking about science. There are
no theories only models. The models are assimilated into our complete
understanding to date. It is a knowledge base mapping experiential
data to the relative and absolute ordering the emergent fractals of
that taken to be fundamental and emergent in the cognitive context of
each model. There are no scientific facts independent of context of a
model and no model excludes any other model except as trumped by
nature herself. Each model must be considered independently but not
in exclusion of other models and the relation between the models
uncovered in the advancement of science.
We start by integrating the classical laws of motion with relativistic
motion. In the first we can go as fast as we want. In the second we
cannot exceed light speed. The truth is that both views are correct.
The traveler at relativistic velocity close to light can achieve a
limitless proper velocity and venture across the galaxy and beyond in
a lifetime, but not without traveling into the future in a reality
where space and time are related such that you cannot travel in one
without traveling in the other.
I've made a lot of noise that every model is wrong because it has
limits and exceptions. But to know the whole truth as far as we can
determine each model ought be applied in the domain where it is
correct. Only if a model applies in no case at all is it totally
useless for prediction. Even models that apply to no observed cases
may prove useful in exceptional cases not yet studied. Science 2.0 is
not a competition where falsified models give way to successor models
as no model can be considered complete and complete understanding
means applying all possible models up to the complexity of the system
to determine how they are and are not manifest by the system.
The problem is that entertaining two independently consistent models
at the same time for the same system is plagued with inconsistencies
between the cognitive contexts of each model.
For example, if I travel to a star 10 light years away in one year on
my clock, I would say I traveled at 10 times light speed. But, but,
but, isn't that faster than light? The fact is that all my
calculations of acceleration, thrust, velocity and travel time would
be correct using Newton's laws. Even NASA uses Newton's laws for
space travel without need for relativistic correction for the space
craft perspective.
But Newton's laws fail to predict that when I return in two years, 22
years will have passed on earth. The question of how long I will
travel and how long will I be gone have different answers. My reality
and your reality are clocked independently. Both realities are real.
It is not true absolutely that you cannot go faster than light speed,
as the church of relativity doctrine teaches. At the same time it is
also true that you cannot actually pass any light no matter how fast
you go. A light path takes zero time relative to the frame of the
light. The direction of light travel is not necessarily determined in
collective electrodynamics but passing light violates time ordering of
events creating a contradiction in event ordering between the two
perspectives of time ordering. This would allow interaction with
oneself in the past in a doubling of energy to infinity. These self
interaction are renormalized out since we never observe explosions of
energy coming from nowhere. It seems apparently true as Einstein
speculated that event ordering is strictly enforced locally while
mutual clocking depends on relative motion.
Light speed relatively would be infinite proper velocity. You can
always use twice the Newtonian acceleration to achieve twice the
proper velocity and get to your destination in half the time. But no
matter how many times you double your proper velocity you will never
get to your destination in zero time or less.
In the future when high speed travel is a reality will we really say
Joe will be going going ten light years at .999XXXc velocity? Or will
we say 10c? The Newtonian, or proper velocity is more useful and
sensible generally. I suppose we will avoid violating the foolish
consistency between the models by saying warp 10 or something rather
than admit he is traveling faster than light by his clock.
In Science 2.0 Einsteins world does not replace Newton's world. The
basic idea of relativity was due to Newton in his relative laws of
motion. Einstein merely extended the notion to include time
globally. Locally Newton's laws still apply just as well as
Einstein's do. Considering only Einstein's laws to be correct leads
to errors in interpretation. The complete truth, so far as we have
determined, is that each must be true in the context to which it
accurately represents according to measurement. The failure of
relativity is that it does not allow mixing of different reference
frames limiting our knowledge of the system. The failure of classical
mechanics is it only models local experience. Employing classical
local dynamics to every participant and relating them relatively only
as necessary to answer questions about the relative distortion between
them is how Science 2.0 avoids any preferred perspective.
If philosophy can admit the correctness of Newton and live with the
inconsistencies, we can then also assimilate the various quantum
interpretations and then even Maxwell's equations. The work has
largely already been done (Carver Mead), but in reinterpreting the collective of
results, in an additive rather than exclusionary manner, the cognitive
context of the synthesis of the models is realized.
Jim
Monday, February 11, 2008
Science 2.0 Principles
Nature is a Machine that can be understood as an information system:
The new science exposes a relative reality expressing other dimensions
inconsistent with our classical notion of a machine. An information
system is a machine which has no dimensional or other constraints.
Any machine can be modeled as an information system. The universe is
in the countable set of information systems so far as it can be
understood. An information system from which experience projected
represents the machinery of the universe from one or more
perspectives. The information system is the analog of the machine
which may or may not represent the actual machinery of the universe.
We can't know if our model is the same as the actual machine. Most
often we find that our model is an emergent effect of statistical
interpretation of organization in another fractal of organization or
information channel. The map is not the territory and we can only
know how our maps interrelate for an incomplete description of
experience. Since our universe apparently exhibits universal logic
what might be exhibited is unrestricted and impossible to model
finitely.
Finite Nature:
It is the presumption of science that the universe is a machine. In
the new science it is firstly a constructable machine. It may be
other things as well, but it is the finitely constructable machine
that is of primary interest to science. Previously Science has
accepted infinities into the realm of the objective, but nature has
contraindicated many of the first principles of Science 1.0, and
Einstein wisely speculated that any complete theory must be free of
singularities which indeed infinities represent.
There are many ways we can enumerate all constructable mathematics and
languages from the simplest to the more complex, infinitely. These are
what is constructable or describable in any manner. Science seeks the
simplest of these models that reflect experience. We can only be sure
we have the simplest if we can eliminate the possibility of there
being an equivalent model with fewer states. In the worst case all
simpler models can be tried to prove there is no simpler finite model.
Multidimensional information semi-fractal perspectives:
Science is a methodology, not an ideology. Part of that methodology
has been formulating theories that present ideals of nature. Instead
nature exhibits an exceptional nature, and ideals are only exhibited
in a limited relative information context. Elsewhere other fractals of
organization dominate in our experience. The ideal is an analogy of
some emergent relative order. It is only one channel of truth, or
information, in complex systems. Each maps the cognitive context of
one perspective on experience.
Taxonomy of Perspectives:
The perception of the observer in Science 2.0 is accepted to be
biased, distorted and relative. We find however that there are
mechanical, chemical and electric devices that confirm our experience
better than a human witness. They further can allow us to project
experience beyond human observer to any participant in an arrangement
being studied, down to the level of an atom. Every participant is
equal in Science 2.0. No special observer status is conveyed to any
participant.
The human reality is our interface to the objective but it is a
subjective and collective reality, not an objective one. We must
except that the human reality is distinct from the objective reality
though they may seem to overlap considerably. Science 2.0 is a
mechanical methodology to distinguish what we know objectively from
what we think we know. Some things we think we know are testable, and
may become objective statements in some context and be found to be
myths in other contexts. Some beliefs are not decidable and taking
either side is in error objectively.
The infinite perspectives include the spiritual and Platonic. Much of
the body of Science 1.0 lays in this realm until finite contexts of
applicability have been formalized for each of the ideals and related
to a relevant perspective.
The social perspectives include cultural and relative perspectives
down to electrodynamic interaction. The life organism, Church,
Nation, family, organism, organ, chemical, electrodynamic.
Self is the perspective where we have no choice about what we truly
believe. We are social elements as much as we are ourselves. As an
object in this world we instantiate an independent clock and are an
equal participant. It is necessarily a subjective perspective.
The absolute perspective includes only that which is necessary and
consistent with the relative perspective of of all known and all
possible participants in the universe. For example, a registered
quantum event has an electrodynamic effect that may have all different
values for different observers, but fact of the quantum logical action
exists absolutely as the exchange of some amount of momentum is
witnessed by any observer that cares to look.
The synthetic model is a machine that accounts for the absolute model.
For example, the quantum mechanical description of matter and energy
may be complete, but it only tells how interaction is felt non locally
with transmission and reception of energy packets instancing
gazillions of bits of apparent space time information from exponential
effect of just hundreds of bits of relative energy information. The
synthetic model describes the actions of individual bits of quantum
action team up into harmonic effects of the absolute model.
The Transcendental perspective posits that physical quantum
information is not special and information on every fractal of
organization is connected in some way to all others and is as much an
actuator of that fractal and it is actualized by it. While this may
be generally true it is also may be highly speculative unless the
mechanism is discovered. With respect to science, it must be
testable. It may be true that quantum action is deterministic
intrinsically, but what we experience is statistically emergent. It
is only causally connected to the information in our world by a 50%
correlation. The physical quantum reality is an independent logical
perspective from the human realm with causation going both ways. We
do not have an objective bases ultimately to say physical quantum
information is necessarily more fundamental. We can only see if
physical quantum information is sufficient to account for the
emergence of all other information contexts we can study or not.
Big is slow, fast is first:
In the quest for first principles in the new science we may be tempted
to find general principles that may always be applied. But clearly
there will be exceptions to all ideals. None the less, there are
themes that emerge in every semi fractal of organization and are
useful across many disciplines. These are markers that allow relating
one information context to another. Big is related to complex
organization with slow change and small to simple organization where a
small change may have a significant immediate effect. Higher
frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Everything is interrelated in
an information system and has effects at a different rate. The
fastest clocks tend to determine the outcome.
It is not always true that big is slow and fast is first, consider big
fast twitch and small slow twitch muscle fibers. Fast internal
clocking does not always exhibit fast external clocking. But by
relative clocking we are unlikely to go wrong associating frequency
with size or complexity. Conveniently, frequency defines a
communication channel and harmonic component of an information
fractal. Conveniently the instantiation by energy of space and time
are directly related, and energy is directly related to frequency. A
long wave is slow frequency and low energy.
While an ant may take ten steps a second, a elephant takes just one.
This is a related fractal where the principle applies but it is not
the same effect really. I include this dual principle in the new
science tentatively, because we need some clock to start with.
Einstein remarked that according to quantum theory the direction of
time should be random. Clearly it is not random as every experiment
verifies. The fastest clock in our realm is the sun. In any realm
being studied there is some fastest clock. What happens in that realm
may not be caused by the fastest clock because tuned senders
(emitters) and receivers (absorbers) of energy equally cause the
event, but using the fastest clock as the first approximation will
generally be rewarded in any information system including biological
and primitive physical systems not to mention brain and mind.
Our prior first principles of a continuum, covariance, inherent
randomness, etc., have been contraindicated by nature. This
preliminary list of principles aims to allow the emergence of a
relative space time as it is manifest by quantum action perceived as
relative energy.
There is no science in isolation:
The new science is where ideals apply and how they are related. The
internet provides content addressability. and semantic standards allow
all our ontologies to be related according to objective criteria of
fact and myth they may imply. The new science will consist of
information objects such as this item that will be linked to related
ontologies such that the ideas may be translated between the cognitive
contexts. In Science 1.0 we could all speak the same language in the
same cognitive context. In the new science nature determines what
information contexts are manifest objectively and none can be excluded
by some ideal. It is time we incorporate at least a minimal semantic
formality in our contribution to the new science such that objectivity
is ordered with respect to related contexts such that we can
distinguish what we know from what we think we know. It will be open
and collective like wikipedia and constrained in other trust networks
employing more specific requirements for objectivity.
Jim
http://InformationPhysics.com
The new science exposes a relative reality expressing other dimensions
inconsistent with our classical notion of a machine. An information
system is a machine which has no dimensional or other constraints.
Any machine can be modeled as an information system. The universe is
in the countable set of information systems so far as it can be
understood. An information system from which experience projected
represents the machinery of the universe from one or more
perspectives. The information system is the analog of the machine
which may or may not represent the actual machinery of the universe.
We can't know if our model is the same as the actual machine. Most
often we find that our model is an emergent effect of statistical
interpretation of organization in another fractal of organization or
information channel. The map is not the territory and we can only
know how our maps interrelate for an incomplete description of
experience. Since our universe apparently exhibits universal logic
what might be exhibited is unrestricted and impossible to model
finitely.
Finite Nature:
It is the presumption of science that the universe is a machine. In
the new science it is firstly a constructable machine. It may be
other things as well, but it is the finitely constructable machine
that is of primary interest to science. Previously Science has
accepted infinities into the realm of the objective, but nature has
contraindicated many of the first principles of Science 1.0, and
Einstein wisely speculated that any complete theory must be free of
singularities which indeed infinities represent.
There are many ways we can enumerate all constructable mathematics and
languages from the simplest to the more complex, infinitely. These are
what is constructable or describable in any manner. Science seeks the
simplest of these models that reflect experience. We can only be sure
we have the simplest if we can eliminate the possibility of there
being an equivalent model with fewer states. In the worst case all
simpler models can be tried to prove there is no simpler finite model.
Multidimensional information semi-fractal perspectives:
Science is a methodology, not an ideology. Part of that methodology
has been formulating theories that present ideals of nature. Instead
nature exhibits an exceptional nature, and ideals are only exhibited
in a limited relative information context. Elsewhere other fractals of
organization dominate in our experience. The ideal is an analogy of
some emergent relative order. It is only one channel of truth, or
information, in complex systems. Each maps the cognitive context of
one perspective on experience.
Taxonomy of Perspectives:
The perception of the observer in Science 2.0 is accepted to be
biased, distorted and relative. We find however that there are
mechanical, chemical and electric devices that confirm our experience
better than a human witness. They further can allow us to project
experience beyond human observer to any participant in an arrangement
being studied, down to the level of an atom. Every participant is
equal in Science 2.0. No special observer status is conveyed to any
participant.
The human reality is our interface to the objective but it is a
subjective and collective reality, not an objective one. We must
except that the human reality is distinct from the objective reality
though they may seem to overlap considerably. Science 2.0 is a
mechanical methodology to distinguish what we know objectively from
what we think we know. Some things we think we know are testable, and
may become objective statements in some context and be found to be
myths in other contexts. Some beliefs are not decidable and taking
either side is in error objectively.
The infinite perspectives include the spiritual and Platonic. Much of
the body of Science 1.0 lays in this realm until finite contexts of
applicability have been formalized for each of the ideals and related
to a relevant perspective.
The social perspectives include cultural and relative perspectives
down to electrodynamic interaction. The life organism, Church,
Nation, family, organism, organ, chemical, electrodynamic.
Self is the perspective where we have no choice about what we truly
believe. We are social elements as much as we are ourselves. As an
object in this world we instantiate an independent clock and are an
equal participant. It is necessarily a subjective perspective.
The absolute perspective includes only that which is necessary and
consistent with the relative perspective of of all known and all
possible participants in the universe. For example, a registered
quantum event has an electrodynamic effect that may have all different
values for different observers, but fact of the quantum logical action
exists absolutely as the exchange of some amount of momentum is
witnessed by any observer that cares to look.
The synthetic model is a machine that accounts for the absolute model.
For example, the quantum mechanical description of matter and energy
may be complete, but it only tells how interaction is felt non locally
with transmission and reception of energy packets instancing
gazillions of bits of apparent space time information from exponential
effect of just hundreds of bits of relative energy information. The
synthetic model describes the actions of individual bits of quantum
action team up into harmonic effects of the absolute model.
The Transcendental perspective posits that physical quantum
information is not special and information on every fractal of
organization is connected in some way to all others and is as much an
actuator of that fractal and it is actualized by it. While this may
be generally true it is also may be highly speculative unless the
mechanism is discovered. With respect to science, it must be
testable. It may be true that quantum action is deterministic
intrinsically, but what we experience is statistically emergent. It
is only causally connected to the information in our world by a 50%
correlation. The physical quantum reality is an independent logical
perspective from the human realm with causation going both ways. We
do not have an objective bases ultimately to say physical quantum
information is necessarily more fundamental. We can only see if
physical quantum information is sufficient to account for the
emergence of all other information contexts we can study or not.
Big is slow, fast is first:
In the quest for first principles in the new science we may be tempted
to find general principles that may always be applied. But clearly
there will be exceptions to all ideals. None the less, there are
themes that emerge in every semi fractal of organization and are
useful across many disciplines. These are markers that allow relating
one information context to another. Big is related to complex
organization with slow change and small to simple organization where a
small change may have a significant immediate effect. Higher
frequencies have shorter wave lengths. Everything is interrelated in
an information system and has effects at a different rate. The
fastest clocks tend to determine the outcome.
It is not always true that big is slow and fast is first, consider big
fast twitch and small slow twitch muscle fibers. Fast internal
clocking does not always exhibit fast external clocking. But by
relative clocking we are unlikely to go wrong associating frequency
with size or complexity. Conveniently, frequency defines a
communication channel and harmonic component of an information
fractal. Conveniently the instantiation by energy of space and time
are directly related, and energy is directly related to frequency. A
long wave is slow frequency and low energy.
While an ant may take ten steps a second, a elephant takes just one.
This is a related fractal where the principle applies but it is not
the same effect really. I include this dual principle in the new
science tentatively, because we need some clock to start with.
Einstein remarked that according to quantum theory the direction of
time should be random. Clearly it is not random as every experiment
verifies. The fastest clock in our realm is the sun. In any realm
being studied there is some fastest clock. What happens in that realm
may not be caused by the fastest clock because tuned senders
(emitters) and receivers (absorbers) of energy equally cause the
event, but using the fastest clock as the first approximation will
generally be rewarded in any information system including biological
and primitive physical systems not to mention brain and mind.
Our prior first principles of a continuum, covariance, inherent
randomness, etc., have been contraindicated by nature. This
preliminary list of principles aims to allow the emergence of a
relative space time as it is manifest by quantum action perceived as
relative energy.
There is no science in isolation:
The new science is where ideals apply and how they are related. The
internet provides content addressability. and semantic standards allow
all our ontologies to be related according to objective criteria of
fact and myth they may imply. The new science will consist of
information objects such as this item that will be linked to related
ontologies such that the ideas may be translated between the cognitive
contexts. In Science 1.0 we could all speak the same language in the
same cognitive context. In the new science nature determines what
information contexts are manifest objectively and none can be excluded
by some ideal. It is time we incorporate at least a minimal semantic
formality in our contribution to the new science such that objectivity
is ordered with respect to related contexts such that we can
distinguish what we know from what we think we know. It will be open
and collective like wikipedia and constrained in other trust networks
employing more specific requirements for objectivity.
Jim
http://InformationPhysics.com
Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism
"In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics--collective electrodynamics--that does not rely on Maxwell's equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.)The results Mead derives for standard electromagnetic problems are identical to those found in any text. Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same--that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena. Mead views his approach as a first step toward reformulating quantum concepts in a clear and comprehensible manner.The book is divided into five sections: magnetic interaction of steady currents, propagating waves, electromagnetic energy, radiation in free space, and electromagnetic interaction of atoms. In an engaging preface, Mead tells how his approach to electromagnetic theory was inspired by his interaction with Richard Feynman."
http://books.google.com/books?id=GkDR4e2lo2MC
I got so excited when I found this. I got one of the first copies printed of the book and cannot believe the scientific community has not taken greater interest in the book. Why? I started a facebook group on it.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20992235532
In this book, Carver Mead has overthrown Maxwell. A student of Feynman, Mead's keen understanding of the quantum (with Lynn Conway's information systems vision) conquered Very Large Scale Integrated semiconductor physics changing our world technologically with "the book" on VSLI.
Now he has exposed the world of charge and magnetism to be false, an emergent illusion resulting from the collective action of as universe composed of potential actions composed of fluxiods (hbar) in integer multiples in a cause-cause rather than cause-effect universe based on Cramer's transactional model of the quantum. Mead shows we know better and we should stop teaching Maxwell as fact in schools!
On the one hand, Mead declares the universe to be of a wave nature, obviously. The universe conspires to have no two equal frequencies by exclusion, instantiating kinetic independent state, and all of experience.
On the other hand he exposes the reality underlying the waves is discrete, cooperative orthogonally folding discrete fluxiods instantiating kinetic momentum exchanges. In a sense, Mead's notion of waves is just as imaginary as are charge and magnetism. Nothing is waving fundamentally there is simply the repetition of arbitrary cooperative patterns at certain frequencies that exhibits existence in our realm. Our experience of energy is frequency by Planck's constant. All else that happens in the quantum is simplified in our mind to a wave at light speed alternating according to frequency. The reality can be much richer than a simple wave as Mead himself illuminates.
I do not agree with Mead's wave interpretation, since the wave notion is emergent just as electromagnetism is, but concede that is what we experience, mostly.
In any case, in my view, this is a very important book in the beginnings of a new science that is free from it's legacy of useful delusions.
energy = information
fluxoid = bit
The end of the reductionist trail is the fluxoid, discriminating 50% of quantum possibilities (Wheeler, Zieglinger, et al), instantiating one bit of existence. It is the beginning of the new science, the universe as a universal cooperative information system, with potential organization beyond our wildest dreams.
http://books.google.com/books
I got so excited when I found this. I got one of the first copies printed of the book and cannot believe the scientific community has not taken greater interest in the book. Why? I started a facebook group on it.
http://www.facebook.com/group
In this book, Carver Mead has overthrown Maxwell. A student of Feynman, Mead's keen understanding of the quantum (with Lynn Conway's information systems vision) conquered Very Large Scale Integrated semiconductor physics changing our world technologically with "the book" on VSLI.
Now he has exposed the world of charge and magnetism to be false, an emergent illusion resulting from the collective action of as universe composed of potential actions composed of fluxiods (hbar) in integer multiples in a cause-cause rather than cause-effect universe based on Cramer's transactional model of the quantum. Mead shows we know better and we should stop teaching Maxwell as fact in schools!
On the one hand, Mead declares the universe to be of a wave nature, obviously. The universe conspires to have no two equal frequencies by exclusion, instantiating kinetic independent state, and all of experience.
On the other hand he exposes the reality underlying the waves is discrete, cooperative orthogonally folding discrete fluxiods instantiating kinetic momentum exchanges. In a sense, Mead's notion of waves is just as imaginary as are charge and magnetism. Nothing is waving fundamentally there is simply the repetition of arbitrary cooperative patterns at certain frequencies that exhibits existence in our realm. Our experience of energy is frequency by Planck's constant. All else that happens in the quantum is simplified in our mind to a wave at light speed alternating according to frequency. The reality can be much richer than a simple wave as Mead himself illuminates.
I do not agree with Mead's wave interpretation, since the wave notion is emergent just as electromagnetism is, but concede that is what we experience, mostly.
In any case, in my view, this is a very important book in the beginnings of a new science that is free from it's legacy of useful delusions.
energy = information
fluxoid = bit
The end of the reductionist trail is the fluxoid, discriminating 50% of quantum possibilities (Wheeler, Zieglinger, et al), instantiating one bit of existence. It is the beginning of the new science, the universe as a universal cooperative information system, with potential organization beyond our wildest dreams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
